Regulating Truck Emissions

[ultrarunner]

Back in the 70's when catalysts were first introduced, they had a big impact on cost and performance, yet the only time you are aware of them today on a gas vehicle is when the oxygen sensor takes a dump. We are taking engines on semi's and off road equipment and cleaning them up for the first time in history. Of course there will be some pain in the beginning.

Thanks for the wealth of information...

I can remember well all the problems with early CAT systems in CA... many cars would stumble and hesitate or even pop through the carb... it was very difficult on the Service Departments dealing with irate customers... some would "Adjust" the sealed factory settings to improve drivability... the notable exception was the CVCC Honda that met all emission requirements without a CAT

I thought Diesel Emission Reduction started in earnest in 1996... at least this is what the CA EPA is saying...

Looks like the Domestic Manufacturers will again be playing catch up to meet our own standards... or maybe they won't even bother and leave the segment like Caterpillar?

 

[FlaDon]

I'd like to see the engine makers tell CA to take a hike. Refuse to build them and when when CA can't get supplies because they won't allow old trucks in either, the politicians would get the point.

 

[westcliffe01]

Ultratrunner, you may be right that California started earlier than everyone else.

The following quote from a MAC website is very detailed and thoughtful regarding looking at the different options from an owners perspective: It is at this link: http://www.macktrucks.com/default.aspx?pageid=3617

You can listen to the CEO conference on SCR at this link (audio) http://www.mackscr.com/assets/mack/video/TruckTalk-SCR_CEO_Summit.wma

7/9/10: I received the following in my mailbox from a long-time Mack Trucks customer. His commentary on the emissions debate is very thoughtful and looks at the competing technologies from the customers perspective. Dave


Here's my take on the whole EGR vs. SCR debate?
As a consumer, I think most could care less which technology gets them to where they need to be, which to me is determined predominantly by the following four things:
1. Must meet whatever ridiculous EPA standards they need to meet in order to comply.
2. Must not sacrifice current fuel economy.
3. Must be reliable for the life of ownership.
4. Must help retain the vehicles overall value for resale.
So, there it is. Thats the challenge to the engine manufacturers. Unfortunately, no one out there has come up with a definitive solution to all of these needs (or at least convinced me they have a real solution) so we have to go with the best of the worst solutions.
So I sit and listen to all the propaganda from each of the manufacturers as we all have (and they all sound fantastic by the way).

They all get past the initial 2010 crunch, Navistar using their credits to accomplish this, and they all get our loads from point A to point B. But thats just the initial short sided look. Only SCR gets us truly compliant with the EPA standards of today while MASS EGR are inadequate to pass once the credits fall off. So drilling in deeper, that directly affects resale value significantly. The current used truck market validates this and is showing this to be true even today. The used trucks that won't meet the 2007 level emission standards are sitting on lots across the country collecting dust because the consumer will only get a few years use out of them so theres no buyer for them. The same will be true when we go to resale a MASS EGR engine a few years from now driving the over all cost of ownership through the roof.

Look at CAT who was the leader of the MASS EGR push. They put all their eggs into the MASS EGR basket and got hammered. They didn't survive. Ask anyone within the CAT organization and they'l tell you, with their small slice of the heavy duty market, they didn't want to invest the ridiculous amount of money into R&D in order to reach EPA standards so they gambled legislation would change the standards to something more obtainable before the 2010 deadline. BAD BET!! Look at last year's market share. They dropped nearly off the radar. Navistar's following right in their footsteps, only they don't have CAT's deep pockets to move on to other profit centers for sustainability. Navistar filed a lawsuit against EPA to get the standards delayed and or changed. And to many this is just the writing on the wall with a desperate act of a desperate company.

Now look at Cummins. They were on the same path as Navistar and CAT when nine months ago they announced their change of heart and embraced SCR as the only long term solution worthwhile. Ask anyone in the Cummins organization and they'll tell you they have plenty of credits (more than Navistar) to carry them into the 2010 standards with MASS EGR, but knew this was only a patch to the challenge. That compiled onto the 10-12% loss in fuel economy made for a very short decision process as to which technology was more viable. The SCR manufacturer's are all touting a 2-4% increase (over and above the extra cost of DEF) in fuel economy because they're able to reduce EGR, thus reducing the heat loss from the engine which translates into more power to the wheels. With a calculated 15% spread in fuel economy, there's an absolute that everyone agrees upon, SCR will provide better fuel economy.

When looking at reliability, we have to make some educated guesses as to what might provide more stability over the life of the product. We know there are already over 200,000 heavy duty SCR units running in Europe that are working day to day, so the assumption really comes from the MASS EGR side. No one has had to run this technology to the extreme 2010 will require. We know heat is the single largest contributor to component wear and fatigue. (I know this as I've held my Master Auto & Diesel Technician License over the years.) We all felt the pains of the increased under hood temperatures during the 2007 emission leap. SCR significantly reduces the temperatures and MASS EGR significantly increases these temperatures. So here's where we have to make some good ole deductions. If you're to invest $100,000+ in a single asset, would you prefer the one that runs cooler or the one that runs hotter? Seems pretty black and white to me, but that's you're gamble.
Now comes the Business 101 lesson 2+2 should equal 4 by must people's calculations. Navistar IS THE ONLY MANUFACTURER IN THE ENTIRE WORLD perusing MASS EGR technology and you have everyone else including Volvo and Mercedes Benz, the two world's largest engine manufacturers in the heavy duty market, using SCR. Navistar is doing everything in it's powers to get the EPA standards to be reduced while every other manufacturer is already certified, without credits, to meet the needs of the green world we are forced to be a part of. There is even one manufacturer that is touting a "no Regen" SCR system. This takes away the only real argument Navistar had that was compelling; the argument that their driver's shouldn't need to be trained on how to operate a regen process.

I'm certainly not looking forward to SCR, but I'm running away from MASS EGR.

Thanks for the wealth of information...

I thought Diesel Emission Reduction started in earnest in 1996... at least this is what the CA EPA is saying..

 

[RickB]

westcliffe01:
Thanks for another informative post on this issue.

 

[westcliffe01]

Here is another useful insight into some of those outrageous claims being touted regarding cost to reach compliance:
EPA Canvassing 2010 Compliance Costs (The World Trucks Blog)

EPA Canvassing 2010 Compliance Costs
We hear that the EPA has been asking questions. In sum, what it seems to be trying to find out are the costs of compliance at EPA 10.
Why should it be doing so? On the basis that it isn't looking for neutral K Street dinner party conversation, we can only conclude that it may be trying to assess the penalties that will be levied against any market participant that fails to comply with the 2010 legislation - either via a combination of SCR and EGR, or, alternatively, by using EGR and EPA Credits - which, of course, diminish with every engine sold after 1st January next year.

It is going to be interesting to see what figures turn up here. Given that CAT was given a very easy ride in a similar situation a few years ago, we suspect that all concerned will looking provide the EPA with some very significant numbers. Daimler's HDEP engine, for example, cost reported $1.5 billion to develop, and, given that DD13, 15 and 16 are the first manifestations of the global range, we can only assume that Daimler will offer up this number for starters, plus a few bob for its inconvenience. A general trend may well be to think of a number, and to keep doubling it.

Should any OEM fail to attain EPA 10 compliance - or should that compliance end as a result of a lack of Credits - then we have to assume that the penalty likely to be levied will be little short of eye-watering. Of course, a smart move here would be to make friends with the EPA; quite how far levying accusations of almost criminal conspiracy against it will go in terms of creating a warm feeling remains to be seen.

 

[westcliffe01]

There is an entire website devoted to combating what are considered "lies" by Navistar at this website: Facts About SCR